Old hospital brings new headaches

After years of sitting empty with an uncertain future, the former Harken Hospital is one step closer to coming down. At the April 15 meeting of the Osceola City Council, council approved city staff moving forward with getting quotes for an asbestos survey for the building located at 216 S. Fillmore St.

Background

In October 2022, the hospital was on the council’s agenda for proposed demolition. Though the building had never formerly been given a dangerous building notice, it was known to be a dangerous location and one that kids would get in trouble for when going inside. It had been privately owned for many years, with the most recent sale recorded as Feb. 4, 2022.

At that meeting, a member of the Historic Preservation Commission was present to talk about the hospital separate from the agenda, and after learning about the proposed demolition, appealed to the council to give the commission time to come up with a way to save the building. The result was a six-month extension of demolition for the commission to explore if the building could be registered as historic, having a structure assessed for salvage and to find a viable funding stream.

An architect came to the hospital later that fall and was able to identify original architecture from the 1910s and from a remodel in the 20s. Structurally speaking, however, the building was not eligible to be on the National Register of Historic Places. Once repairs were made, then the process could begin on having it added to the register, as well as open up grant opportunities for further restoration.

In May 2023, the building was back on the docket for another discussion about demolition. The Historic Preservation Commission spoke to council again about their desire to save the building

but that they needed help to do so, and they requested more time to track down possible donors or endowments to raise funds to possibly purchase the hospital. A 90-day extension on demolition was passed, during which the commission was directed to come up with a restoration plan and possible uses for the building.

A year later, the hospital was once more in front of the council for discussion. Osceola City Administrator Ty Wheeler reported that in talking with the building’s owner, he was interested in the demolition of the structure but could not fund it up front.

The owner had proposed some sort of conceptual partnership with the city, where the demolition could be assessed to his taxes over a 10-year period. He would perform as much of the demolition as he could himself to help abate some of the costs.

Members of the Historic Preservation Commission spoke to council again about the desire to save the building, but understood that the final decision was up to the city.

At a later meeting that year, it was noted by city staff that the building owner had no interest in saving the building and still wanted it taken down.

Quit claim deed and sale

At the council’s March 2, meeting, it was reported the owner of 216 S. Fillmore St. had conveyed the property to the City of Osceola via quit claim deed. What was unknown to the city at the time was that the parcel the building sits on had been split, to where the city only had the deed to the physical building. The rest of the lot - including most all of the yard and some additional buildings - were split into a separate parcel.

According to minutes from the April 10 meeting of the Osceola Water Board, a resolution was passed for the purchase of property at 202 W. Cherry Drive in the amount of $57,500.00, with possession and closing on or before June 1 (the minutes were not available at the time of the April 15 council meeting). That property was the other part of the original parcel.

Mayor Thomas Kedley expressed his frustration at the situation regarding the parcel being split and the sale, as well as the city being left with a building with significant damage.

“A big hole was left in the side, and they were going to separate the water department and give the rest to the city and say you clean it up. I’d be in favor of giving it back to the owner and saying no, you will clean it up on your own dime,” Kedley said on April 15. “I don’t like when people do this kind of stuff - we need to be a community and work together. This is not ok…What we should have done, we should have worked with the building owner at the beginning and not gone through this whole parade.”

Councilman Dr. George Fotiadis suggested the water board should dispose of the whole lot including the building. When asked by Kedley the cost to tear down the building, Wheeler said he didn’t know, as the structure would need to be assessed for asbestos first.

“...we want to work in good faith with all parties. In addition to that, the building was left in such a state where it’s missing more than half of its exterior walls and is unsafe. It’s been stripped of its value on the inside…It’s a shell of what it used to be,” Kedley said. “It’s our job as public servants for community safety, and we have kids walking to and from school, kids that live around that facility. We gotta do the right thing and tear it down. I just wish we would have worked better as a community and entities.”

“The way it’s plotted currently right now, we tear down the hospital, is that a legally buildable lot for any kind of viable business, resident, anything?” councilman Tom Bahls inquired.

The response was that it would not be likely, due to the size constraints - approximately 52.29x74.18-feet - but there could be future opportunities for some sort of parking. Bahls pointed out that the buildings on the parcel being purchased by the water department had buildings on slabs, which would be of minimal cost to them to remove. Wheeler reminded council that there had at one point been a discussion between the city and water department and possibly another entity about doing something together for the lot, but then nothing had been said for some time before the current deal was struck. Talks about the difference in value of the property separate from the hospital itself were touched on.

Fotiadis asked if the city could refuse to accept the property and have demolition be billed to tax the current property owner, or if they could say that the hospital has to be part of the whole parcel. Wheeler told the council he understood their frustrations with the situation and how the transaction had occurred but reiterated that his main concern was on the structure itself.

“We gotta get it cleaned up,” Wheeler said. “At least cover [the holes] up.”

“To make it safe,” Kedley added.